Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dario

Disprove God

Recommended Posts

  So I will, in my opionion and to the requests made, give you my proof that there is a "God."  Realize that my reasoning does not come from higher education or strict learnings.  I'm a college drop-out.

My first reason for believing in a "God" is nature.  I'm sorry, but my mind cannot entertain the thought that the earth and the universe were made from nothing.  The chances of "things" coming together to create the complexity of the universe are astronomical.  In my opionion, it takes more faith to believe in that, than to believe in a "God."  I also don't believe that we are the same as animals, having no purpose.  The complexity of the human mind is astounding to me.  I cannot comprehend the thought that we are on the same level as a chicken or any other animal.  And where did we get the concept of right and wrong?  When did the idea of morals come into effect?  Animals, from what I think, don't abide by this law of right and wrong, so then, why do we?  I cannot believe that the "nothingness" we were made from would give us this "law."  For those reasons I believe that there is a higher power at work.  A "Creator" if you will.  I am not, however, proving in the existence of the christian God, I am only trying to rationalize the proof of a "God." 

I realize that many of you will criticize my thinking and give me answers that just "explain away" this phenomena.  Yes, I've read that some of you do believe in a "God", while others of you don't.  But we shouldn't try to explain away this phenomena just to disprove there is a God, we should honestly seek the truth, like I am doing.  I will appreciate your feedback, maybe not the negative so much, and will look forward to discussing this.

 

This could be considered complimentary to a deist view of the universe. That's fine and good Dario. So you won't get too much argument from deists until you angle for the Christian god, aka biblegod.

 

You will find, Dario. That getting people to entertain the notion that a god exists really doesn't get you closer to convincing folks (especially ex-c'ers) that the Christian god is the god of all.

 

Turning athiests into deists doesn't get them closer to making them Christians. And if you've looked up deism and really thought about that type of belief....you'll realize your odds for getting deists to accept Christianity, or Islam, or any religion as representing "true faith" are about as good as squeezing champagne from a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This could be considered complimentary to a deist view of the universe. That's fine and good Dario. So you won't get too much argument from deists until you angle for the Christian god, aka biblegod.

 

You will find, Dario. That getting people to entertain the notion that a god exists really doesn't get you closer to convincing folks (especially ex-c'ers) that the Christian god is the god of all.

 

Turning athiests into deists doesn't get them closer to making them Christians. And if you've looked up deism and really thought about that type of belief....you'll realize your odds for getting deists to accept Christianity, or Islam, or any religion as representing "true faith" are about as good as squeezing champagne from a rock.

 

 

 

Thank you, white raven, for your input, but you have to understand that I am not proving the Christian God here. You can see in my posts no referrence to the Christian God or Jesus. All I am doing is starting off by trying to prove in the existence of "God." For my own personal journey, I've seen that proof, or at least enough to convince me, and I've also been given the opportunity to see proof for Christianity. I am in the process of studying that "proof" and seeing if it is legitimate. But let me tell you this, so everyone knows where I am at. I have faith that I will find out the truth and my faith will not be shaken. Whatever evidence I find will only strenghten my faith. Your questions only strenghten my faith because they challenge me to seek. If nothing else kept me going, faith would. I live by faith, and hopefully, my works show it.

 

I hope you all don't think that I am an ignorant Christian coming to this site thinking I could go fishing for new Christians. I realize that most of, if not all of you, were at one point Christians. Some of you are probably better versed in the bible than I am. I'm sure that you have been asked the same questions that you are asking me. Most of the questions that are asked are too difficult to answer. I am a straightforward guy, so I'm going to tell you if I don't know the answer, and there are many answers I do not know. But I am not here to witness. You have been witnessed to over and again. I am here purely for selfish reasons. I enjoy your challenges. Nothing more and nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is absolutely correct.  In my mind, the universe and the earth and humans and everything else could not have evolved from nothing. An analogy I read once said, " that scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747."
That's a very bad analogy, because it's likening swirling vortexes of wind creating jets with swirling chemicals creating life or generating new species. This is not what biologists believe at all.

 

The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't include replication/reproduction, mutation, or natural selection. Ironically, this analogy, in which a fully formed complex instrument is produced in a single creation event, is more compatible with Intelligent Design. It doesn't, however, even come close to describing evolution.

 

The changes occur in stages, so that simple chemicals become more complex chemicals, which then in turn become replicating polymers. Once you have replication, then you have a system in which small changes can occur and success and failure is gauged on how well those factors enable survival. With success in change and replication, these polymers can go through a series of changes in which they attain increased complexity.

 

And this is an important step, because it's replication that allows increasing complexity. As these replicants arise again and again, they have an infinitesimal number of chances at small successes, which later translate into larger successes, which then becomes something that vaguely resembles life, which is your protobiot.

 

This is where the Christian always gets into trouble, because they have this very naive idea of life as though life and non-life are black and white, but that's no always the case. A classic example is the virus, which is a strange particle-based... thing... which exists somewhere in the twilight zone between life and non-life. Viruses are compatible with a non-Christian view of biology, but not with Christian creationism.

 

Anyway... this is where the protobiot fits, because it's not simply a chemical, yet it's not life. It's a pre-life replicating organization of compounds, of which life is then the next step.

 

This is in no way like your Boeing in that silly junkyard analogy. In order to give a proper analogy, you'd need an innumerable number of tornados tossing about cylicates and metals until you wind up with a complex structure. These structures would then develope replicating processes by which their metallic structures become more complex until one becomes a simple machine which can generate a charge and sustain a circuit. Then as this simple machine replicates itself, it gradually changes, some of which succeed and enable more complex functions, such as moving parts and simple calculations. Simple successes would then develope into larger successes, inwhich complex functionality could arise, which would result in claws, and turbines. Turbines would enable to evolution of wheels. With wheels would come fast locamotion. Over many generations on our fictitious machine planet, these wheeled machines might develope fins on the side, which may have originally aided in turning but eventually became large enough to produce enough lift to glide. From gliding, it's only a short leap to sustainable flight and then finally powered flight, and then you'd have your Boeing.

 

That's a far better analogy than the one you provided. Granted, it's a little absurd, because machical systems, unlike biological systems, can't replicate themselves, which is actually necessary component in order for natural selection to work. What's impossible for machines, though, is not impossible for carbon-based replicators becoming life.

 

You really have a lot to learn about biology and biochemistry. I know, because I have a much greater understanding of biochemistry than you, and yet my knowledge is dwarfed by other members of this board.

 

My expertise is biology, which you clearly don't understand either. I don't mean that as an insult or anything. I'm just trying to make you understand where your errors are. Hopefully you will have the intellectual integrity to correct yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asimov, you say we got the idea for right and wrong from society, but then where did "society" get this idea?  Did a group of men get together and brainstorm?  If so, wouldn't that mean they would have had to have this law working inside of them?  And if thats the case, where did the law originally come from?  Society?  That just doesn't make sense to me, so call me ignorant if you want, but while you do so, please provide me proof for your reasoning.

 

Listen, moral concepts in societies existed long before humans came around. A lot of mammals, especially primates, live in a social structure. Morality itself is just a concept. Every society has rules on how to behave. Behaviours are either genetic or learned. And, as we know from studying evolution, populations evolve, not individuals. If a population (species) exist in close-knit groups called societies, the ones that have the behaviours that aid in the survival of the society will survive...the ones that have behaviours that do not aid in the survival of the society will not.

 

Hence, murder is wrong, because if everyone killed, then there would be nobody left.

 

 

That is absolutely correct.  In my mind, the universe and the earth and humans and everything else could not have evolved from nothing. An analogy I read once said, " that scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747."

 

It didn't evolve from nothing.

 

There is yet to be proof that the universe was not created by "Intelligent Design", and also, there is yet to be proof that there was an "Intelligent Designer."

 

Buddy, there is yet to be proof that the universe wasn't shitted out by a non-corporeal green leprechaun, but that doesn't stop me from analyzing your statement and seeing that it is devoid of any actual logic. You need to define what an intelligent designer is, before you go claiming it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Society created laws not because some god installed a "morals code" into their brains, but by common sense. It doesn't take long for people to realize that it is in their combined best interest to make rules that create the greatest benefit for the most people, and forbid actions that hurt those among them (-unless there is a greater benefit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAMN YOU ASIMOV!

 

I was all ready to post my little counter-attack, and you had to go and do that. *facepalm* But here it is anyway, if anyone's interested to see what I can come up with at almost three in the morning.

 

Just as God is dominant over all in His House, men are dominant in their houses.

And that, children, is called sexism.

 

Mary wasn't raped, God is a transcendant being, and instilled within her the Honour of carrying Jesus, the Son.

Rape is defined as 'the crime of forcing somebody to have sex'. Mary was given no say in the matter - therefore it is rape. It was done wholly without her consent. I have read the Bible, believe it or not, so don't you dare go trying to accuse me otherwise.

 

No sane woman would consider it an honour to carry her rapist's child. Not even a Christian.

 

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is the official word of God, and we might take you seriously. Tangible proof, if you please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Neil, I would have to agree with you in saying that I know nothing about biology. All I was saying by giving that analogy was how unlikely life could have been formed from a single particle(if thats what evolutionists believe in). Now because of my lack of study in this area, I'm not going to try to argue against it. Sure, I've read books that have stated how unlikely such a thing could have happened, but I will never understand it. In my opionion, there is no way to prove evolution with science, since science is based on experiments. Until someone can create a universe, then I'll believe.

 

 

As for the topic on Morals, Asimoz, it still doesn't make sense to me. You say every society has rules of behavior, but where did the rules come from? You say behavior is either genetic or learned. Where did this originally come from? If you are saying that you are born knowing right and wrong, then you are agreeing with me. If that is not what you are saying, then please elaborate so I can understand more clearly.

 

 

"You may not be trying to prove it, however, you state in your profile "Christian God". No matter what you say, your belief is stated and so it is hard for me personally, not to think that you haven't come here with some sort of Christian agenda, i.e.; if I can get them to admit that there is a god, my next step is to prove Christian god.

I'm sorry, but I really see no other reason for you to be posting in reference to proving/disproving god(s)." -thankful-

 

 

 

I apologize if you think that I have an agenda to witness here. I don't. But from reading other posts on this forum it seemed to me that people wanted to be given "proof" so that they can debate it. But what if my proof is accurate. Will it be denied for the sake of atheism or hatred towards Christianity? I am not saying in the least that my proof is enough evidence to prove God or Christianity. All I am saying is that if you were given the proper evidence for God or Christianity, would you accept it? And that question can be turned around to me. If I were given the proper evidence that disproves God and Christianity, would I accept it? If there was conclusive evidence, then yes, I would. But until then, I will keep my views. Can you honestly say that you would accept proof for God if it were conclusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but my mind cannot entertain the thought that the earth and the universe were made from nothing...I cannot comprehend the thought that we are on the same level as a chicken or any other animal.

 

This is what we call an "Arguement from Ignorance". This arguement is the equivalent of saying "I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work."

 

" that scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747."

 

This is a dishonest analogy because is not a true parallel to what you are comparing it to (life coming out of non-life). A tornado is not the same thing as the conditions of prehistoric earth. A complex, pre-defined Boeing 747 is not the same as extremely simple life forms.

 

I'm trying to prove in the existence of a God.

 

You are not only trying to prove the existence of a god, you are trying to prove a god that created life without using evolution and which has some sort of moral capacity similiar to the christian god.

 

As for morals, I think that human morality is a combination of herd instinct (as seen in wolves, dogs, etc.), parental instinct, common-sense social values designed to keep us living peacefully together in a society and the acting out of our instinctual disgust with certain things (like bodily fluids). I can expand on any of these points if needed. I also think that animals have certain elements of morality (like herd mentality) but we define these things as instinct rather than morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I was saying by giving that analogy was how unlikely life could have been formed from a single particle(if thats what evolutionists believe in).

They don't.

 

Now because of my lack of study in this area, I'm not going to try to argue against it.  Sure, I've read books that have stated how unlikely such a thing could have happened, but I will never understand it.  In my opionion, there is no way to prove evolution with science, since science is based on experiments.  Until someone can create a universe, then I'll believe.

Your opinion is based more on what you don't understand than what you do. Anyone who forms an opinion about something without having some understanding of it, is a very dangerous person who should be kept far from voting booths, teaching jobs, and politics (well...one can wish).

 

You say every society has rules of behavior, but where did the rules come from?  You say behavior is either genetic or learned.  Where did this originally come from?  If you are saying that you are born knowing right and wrong, then you are agreeing with me.  If that is not what you are saying, then please elaborate so I can understand more clearly.

 

A very simple brand of what we now call "morality" exists in all social species. Wolves, lions, bees, on and on. The "morality" has evolved through trial and error, and those codes of behavior are the result of that. Those primitive codes are what kept the social systems of the primitive social systems intact. The results of which are evidenced in the modern animal (and human) social systems today.

 

 

Can you honestly say that you would accept proof for God if it were conclusive?

 

You were responding to Thankful here, who is also a deist. You should probably direct such a question at the atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you honestly say that you would accept proof for God if it were conclusive?

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opionion, there is no way to prove evolution with science, since science is based on experiments. Until someone can create a universe, then I'll believe.

 

Dude, Biology has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe...

 

As for the topic on Morals, Asimoz, it still doesn't make sense to me. You say every society has rules of behavior, but where did the rules come from? You say behavior is either genetic or learned. Where did this originally come from? If you are saying that you are born knowing right and wrong, then you are agreeing with me. If that is not what you are saying, then please elaborate so I can understand more clearly.

 

No, they aren't born knowing right and wrong, it's a learned behaviour. The rules develop over time in close-knit societies, dario, they come from the populations that live together. We teach our kids right and wrong. It's a simple concept that societies that don't follow certain rules (because cultures evolve just as biological organisms do), tend to die out. If it's a genetic tendancy to be averse to killing other human beings then it came from mutations, then yes, it is inborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opionion, there is no way to prove evolution with science, since science is based on experiments. Until someone can create a universe, then I'll believe.

 

Careful dario, you're confusing a bilogical process w/the creation of the cosmos. Evolution doesn't have anything to do w/cosmology. When you are able to get an accurate definition of evolution in your head, you'll see that it's nothing like the "junkyard" analogy you gave.

 

The quest for truth is the most noble one a person can undertake, for that, I applaud you. But please keep in mind that truth cannot be reached from a point of certainty.

 

If you stick around long enough, and actually listen, I'm sure you'll find something of the truth you seek. Just don't blame us if it isn't the one you were looking for in the first place...

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dario, from what I can tell so far, you do indeed go to the "Argument From Ignorance" school of debate.

 

There is a lot about the world, and the nature of the universe that we do understand. But there's no way to explain it to someone who just doesn't have the knowledge base to comprehend.

 

This doesn't mean you are stupid or ignorant. Just very uninformed. If you will check out the last 6 or so pages of the Knowledge thread (don't try reading the whole thing....your eyes might bleed), you will note a discussion on evolution between two confused (and wanting very much to stay that way) Christians, and a pack of VERY science educated ex-cers. Even I as a fellow ex-cer had difficulty grasping some of the concepts (some of which were new to me and worth further study).

 

If I can finish college and still be floored by the knowledge base of my fellow ex-cers.....you don't have a hope for understanding some of the stuff they will bring in as evidence.

 

And just because you don't understand the evidence through lack of education, doesn't make the evidence invalid.

 

Not understanding the answer won't make the answers false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note dario, you say that the world is too complex to have "just happened" and then ascribe it to an even more complex creator to have started it. This doesn't actually answer anything. It only adds the question of "who created this complex creator?" If you say that god is "uncreated" than it's just as easy (and a step less complicated) to just say the universe is "uncreated" and leave it at that...

 

(see, no evolution mentioned, because this is cosmology, not biology...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Neil, I would have to agree with you in saying that I know nothing about biology.  All I was saying by giving that analogy was how unlikely life could have been formed from a single particle(if thats what evolutionists believe in).  Now because of my lack of study in this area, I'm not going to try to argue against it.  Sure, I've read books that have stated how unlikely such a thing could have happened, but I will never understand it.  In my opionion, there is no way to prove evolution with science, since science is based on experiments.  Until someone can create a universe, then I'll believe.
Now wait just a minute. How can you say that you don't believe that science can prove evolution when you just said that you have no knowledge of biology. Aren't you putting the wagon ahead of the horse? Your statement is completely uninformed.

 

Second, why would someone have to create a universe? Evolution is the changing of alleles in biology. It has nothing to do with cosmology. Why are you associating the two?

 

You seem to have a complete misconception of what the role of science is. Science doesn't "prove" things. Science is about making and testing theories which are meant to describe the nature of observed phenomena. Evolution meets this criteria, because it's been able to explain things about our genetics, such as why we share so much similarities with the chimps, including non-functioning genes and retroviral remnants. It's consistant with the fossil record, as animals with similar morphology are always found relatively close to one another or along similar migration paths. It fits the geologic column, because as the higher you go, you can see environmental changes and its affect on the species.

 

I don't know why, if you admit that you don't understand something, that you feel it's appropriate to set standards of belief for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to apologize for any confusion I may have caused when I was talking about evolution and the universe. I am not educated in either of these areas and so I will no longer argue for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to apologize for any confusion I may have caused when I was talking about evolution and the universe.  I am not educated in either of these areas and so I will no longer argue for them.

 

Then the whole basis for your "proof" shatters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to apologize for any confusion I may have caused when I was talking about evolution and the universe.  I am not educated in either of these areas and so I will no longer argue for them.

 

So it would seem that the next step in your search for truth should be to study this kind of thing, would it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the whole basis for your "proof" shatters!

 

 

Just because I'm not educated in a certain theory does not mean that my proof in God is shattered. There is information on both sides of the arguement. One side says they have proof in evolution and so there is no need for a "God." The other side, however, says there is not enough valid evidence supporting evolution. So which side is correct? Is it possible that God used evolution to create mankind? I have no idea because, one, I am not educated in that area, and two, I don't know the mind of God, assuming there is a God. So you and whoever else can give me all of the "evidence" you want in disproving God, if that is your intent, but it still won't be 100% guaranteed. I can sit here and give you all the proof I have into why the bible is true, why there really was such a person as Jesus, and why the ressurrection is true. You still will refute it because you don't want to believe it. In my opionion, a lot of people believe in things such as evolution to avoid believing in God. I can make the same arguement by saying those people are ignorant. Those people who call me ignorant do so in accordance with what they believe in, why can't I do the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you need to open your heart and mind to God.  Reading the Bible reveals the Truth about His Love and His Sacrifice for the ones who prostrate themselves before Him in humble repentance.  It is but a signpost to the Truth.

Truth? I thought christianity was based upon FAITH. You can't have both. If its true, then you don't need Faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because I'm not educated in a certain theory does not mean that my proof in God is shattered.  There is information on both sides of the arguement.  One side says they have proof in evolution and so there is no need for a "God."

 

That's kind of a long jump to that conclusion.

 

  The other side, however, says there is not enough valid evidence supporting evolution.  So which side is correct?  Is it possible that God used evolution to create mankind?  I have no idea because, one, I am not educated in that area,

 

Neither am I, but I can still at least do some research. Be like Uncle Chan! You must do research!

 

and two, I don't know the mind of God, assuming there is a God.

 

You could also say that since we never actually got to see what happened, we can't be sure.

 

Just a thought.

 

  So you and whoever else can give me all of the "evidence" you want in disproving God, if that is your intent,  but it still won't be 100% guaranteed.

 

And neither will your belief. Aye, there's the rub.

 

  I can sit here and give you all the proof I have into why the bible is true, why there really was such a person as Jesus, and why the ressurrection is true.  You still will refute it because you don't want to believe it.  In my opionion, a lot of people believe in things such as evolution to avoid believing in God.

 

Wow, that's presumptuous. The two are mutually exclusive, bud. Don't try to put words in people's mouths, huh?

 

I can make the same arguement by saying those people are ignorant.  Those people who call me ignorant do so in accordance with what they believe in, why can't I do the same thing?

 

Because they're not calling you ignorant for what you believe, but how you argue it. There is such a thing as an ignorant argument. Do a Google search for "logical fallacies" sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because I'm not educated in a certain theory does not mean that my proof in God is shattered.

 

If you don't have any idea of what you're talking about then, yes, your arguement falls apart.

 

So you and whoever else can give me all of the "evidence" you want in disproving God, if that is your intent, but it still won't be 100% guaranteed.

 

No amount of evidence for anything is 100%, but at a certain point it becomes unreasonable to hold on to a belief with so much evidence stacked against you.

 

I can sit here and give you all the proof I have into why the bible is true, why there really was such a person as Jesus, and why the ressurrection is true. You still will refute it because you don't want to believe it.

 

Your proof is worthless if it's logically refutable. Anyone can claim to have proof for anything but if their proof is ridiculous or based on ignorance then it doesn't really prove anything.

 

In my opionion, a lot of people believe in things such as evolution to avoid believing in God.

 

This is a completely unfair and baseless assumption. Also, people don't "believe in" evolution the way people "believe in" religion.

 

I can make the same arguement by saying those people are ignorant. Those people who call me ignorant do so in accordance with what they believe in, why can't I do the same thing?

 

Except that we actually stated the logical reasons why we thought your posts showed ignorance. Also, how are we being ignorant? You're the one who even admits to not knowing about the subjects they're bringing up.

 

If you really are in an honest search for truth, as you claim, I think you should know that automatically dismissing the arguements of the other side without considering them or even trying to refute them is not exactly a good way of going about things.

 

You started out here claiming to be searching for truth and trying to seem open minded but this latest post, in which you back away from the actual arguement going on and make baseless assertions like "you just don't want to believe!", has really made your true intention show through. It seems you're not really interested in the truth, just in justifying your belief in Christianity at any cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can sit here and give you all the proof I have into why the bible is true, why there really was such a person as Jesus, and why the ressurrection is true. You still will refute it because you don't want to believe it. In my opionion, a lot of people believe in things such as evolution to avoid believing in God. I can make the same arguement by saying those people are ignorant. Those people who call me ignorant do so in accordance with what they believe in, why can't I do the same thing?

 

But Dario, we aren't ignorant of the christian arguments in favor of the existence of god...we USED to BE christians! I don't believe in evolution so that I don't have to believe in god. The two have NOTHING to do with each other. You said so yourself, god could have used evolution to create the diversity we see today.

 

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

That being said, many of here know as much or more about biblical scholarship and evolution than you have expressed so far (I could be wrong, but I'm going w/what I've seen so far). Why then do we believe the way we do? Ignorance? I don't believe so...

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say there's no use talking about this subject at all until dario here defines what exactly he/she means by "God" in the first place. For all I know, "God" could be dario's name for Mookie Wilson and he certainly does exist.

 

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  There is information on both sides of the arguement.  One side says they have proof in evolution and so there is no need for a "God."  The other side, however, says there is not enough valid evidence supporting evolution.  So which side is correct? 

 

What argument is this? With who precisely? This would only be a very hardcore athiesm argument.

 

Or is this the argument as you see it? Are there only two extremes for you? Either you have to be a die-hard christian or a die-hard atheist?

 

That is a very limited word view. There is infinite room for a wider perspective.

 

If this is how you view the argument, you've already geared your position before looking at both sides objectively. The argument is lopsided. Unbalanced.

 

To be honest, I really don't see the evolution/creation argument as evidence for, or against god at all. Whether all was created 10,000 years ago, or started slowly billions of years ago really ISN'T THE POINT.

 

Is that the best religion can do? The only proof of your particular supreme being comes from a book of dubious authorship put together over 1500 years ago? With no new stories being added since? :Hmm:

 

Flimsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.